1. Susan's logic indicates that Lucy must be lying, because she can see that the back of the wardrobe is wood. Professor Kirke's logic indicates that because Lucy does not lie, Susan must not be seeing everything there is to see. Who is right? Why?

In a way, both are right. We (the readers) are in a privileged position in that we accompany Lucy and then Edmund through the wardrobe and so we know Lucy's story is true. But what if the narrative had been from the others' point of view - one moment Lucy had gone into the Wardrobe Room and the next she came running out saying she'd been away for hours and hours, and we'd only had her report of events? At best it would have been a mystery - did she really experience all these things or not? (A similar idea came up in the Jodie Foster sci-fi film "Contact", in which she allegedly spent 18 hours on an alien planet when it took no time at all on Earth.)

By the way, for the purposes of this debate, I'm not considering the fact that the Professor already knew about Narnia because he'd been there as a child. We don't find that out until five books' later, and Lewis doesn't even hint at it anywhere in LWW. I think that when he wrote LWW he had no idea that the Professor himself had visited Narnia.

2. The Professor seems to take the view that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. What does this tell you about Professor Kirke's character? What parallels could be drawn between Kirke, Spock, and Sherlock Holmes? What makes their characters fundamentally different?

As an aside, until I read the above sentence I hadn't made any connection between Professor Kirke and Captain Kirk, but now I've an idea for a Narnia spoof in which "the Professor" is Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise...

The connection is their love of logic. The Professor and Holmes, I think, are more inclined to think laterally. Vulcans seem to follow the Occam's Razor principle, that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true. For instance, in one episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, when faced with circumstantial but compelling evidence of time travellers, T'Pol is reluctant to accept it, stating the Vulcan High Command's view that time travel is impossible. Then again, how do you define "simplest"? One could say that the simplest explanation for Lucy saying that she'd travelled to a land called Narnia is that she'd travelled to a land called Narnia, though this overlooks the complexity of how this could have been achieved.

3. If you were Peter and Susan, and had never even considered the idea of other worlds, would you think the Professor's arguments made sense? Why/why not?

I don't think it would have been possible to convince them of the existence of other worlds at this stage. It would be like you or I telling someone about some strange story someone had told us and them responding by saying, "Our reality is not all it seems to be." But at least they took on board his advice to be nicer to Lucy.

4. Which of the 3 choices (losing their heads, Mrs. Macready trying to catch them, or some magic chasing them into Narnia) do you think is the reason the children thought they were being followed everywhere?

I don't think Mrs. Macready was trying to catch them; that sounds like they're just being paranoid. If Mrs. Macready was showing tourists around the house then she would want the children to stay out of her way. Why would she be trying to catch them with a party of strangers in tow?

Magic chasing them into Narnia: possible, but I don't like this explanation - it almost seems like they were being "forced" into Narnia, disregarding their free will. Though that did happen to them in PC...

I think "losing their heads" seems the best reason.

5. What was your favorite/least favorite part? Why? What else caught your attention?

I'd forgotten how spiteful Edmund was at this point in the story. I wonder what on earth had happened to him to make him like that.

1. Susan's logic indicates that Lucy must be lying, because she can see that the back of the wardrobe is wood. Professor Kirke's logic indicates that because Lucy does not lie, Susan must not be seeing everything there is to see. Who is right? Why?

I think that Susan has a very concrete view of life. You do things because they are the rules. The world is the way it is because the adults say so and because what they say is all too real. Susan might take chances with people, in this case because they are all away from their parents and have no option but to do so. But I doubt that if Lucy had not made those funny claims that Susan would not be at all that interested in nosing into the contents of someone else's wardrobe. (Well, maybe the furs..) Lucy's adventure doesn't fit into those categories, and into Susan's world view, therefore Lucy must either be lying or suffering hallucinations.

The professor is one of those people that can be very irritating to laymen/women/girls who have a very plain pedestrian point of view. I don't need Pauline Baynes' illustration to note that he smokes a pipe, not unlike Sherlock Holmes. I could imagine him saying in a superior, rather lordly fashion, "Elementary my dear Susan", who, like the other children, really wants her parents to turn up and take responsibility for what is going on, and who, perversely, has also enjoyed her new-found independence up to the point when Lucy's discovery had changed things.

2. The Professor seems to take the view that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. What does this tell you about Professor Kirke's character? What parallels could be drawn between Kirke, Spock, and Sherlock Holmes? What makes their characters fundamentally different?

I've personally found both Spock and Sherlock Holmes some of the most irritating and patronising literary characters around. Just because they smoke a pipe or have strange ears they think they are the soul of logic and tend to look down on the foibles of their admiring offsiders/children. They also belong to an era that produced Hercule Poirot, whose moustache and Belgian accent also makes him a rather vain guru of who dunnit. Not to mention the pipe-smoking fatherly Fred McMurray TV character in Father knows best.

It is tempting to see Professor Kirke in the same light, and I think I know a Narnian character who might agree. He is a pipe-smoker who is hairily bearded, something male teachers, and especially professors, often affect to get their pupils to take them a bit more seriously. He probably has leather patches on the elbows of his jackets, and yes, I have met a few professors and teachers just like that.

But then I see his problem. As King Erlian says above, we learn much later that he has had his own adventures. As the owner of the house, and their host, he is responsible for the welfare of these children, much as he is responsible for what goes on in his lecture rooms. The reader doesn't know about any Narnian experience he might have had, nor that he can't afford to let on about such adventures at this stage, especially to someone like Susan, whose ideas of reality wouldn't permit it. Therefore the Professor chooses a professional approach to logic, to get through to both Peter and Susan that until they find further evidence, they are to mind their own business.

3. If you were Peter and Susan, and had never even considered the idea of other worlds, would you think the Professor's arguments made sense? Why/why not?

I think that Susan and Peter would be impressed by the logic the Professor uses, but not necessarily about the arguments about other worlds. On the other hand, this was the era of H.G.Wells, Jules Verne, and Clyde Tombaugh's real life discovery of Pluto. It was also an era of wartime, where people in other countries, in particular, 'disappeared' in what was often sinister circumstances. I think that Susan and Peter would be a bit uncomfortable about the idea of other worlds around the corner or in a wardrobe being real.

At least the Professor got Peter and Susan to see that Lucy was treated a bit better.

4. Which of the 3 choices (losing their heads, Mrs. Macready trying to catch them, or some magic chasing them into Narnia) do you think is the reason the children thought they were being followed everywhere?

I think it was a mixture of all three. If the children had been at all logical, they would have checked the order in which Mrs Macready organised her tours, as a way of ensuring they stayed out of her way. On the other hand, even if they had thought to do this, there is no reason why Mrs Macready might stick to such an arrangement, so that wherever the children went to avoid her, the opposite might happen by chance. I'd imagine the four of them would lose their heads at this juncture, and finding nowhere else to go, would seize on the chance that the last place Mrs Macready would go to was the room with the Wardrobe. And is it just chance or something else like magic, that at that point in time, there was really no other place to hide?

5. What was your favorite/least favorite part? Why? What else caught your attention?

My least favourite part of this chapter was the way Edmund behaved when back in the real world, and Lucy's unhappiness. My favourite part was when they all found out that Lucy was right all along.

1. The Professor is, of course, actually correct. As to why, we know that Lucy has been through the wardrobe and thus Susan is wrong. And, of course, we know that he knows from personal experience that other worlds do exist.

2. All three are very logical people apparently! What's interesting though is that Sherlock Holmes and Spock tend to be rather scientific and practical and "stuck" in reality and thus not very imaginative or open to the fantastic, whereas Kirke is obviously open to the idea that other worlds exist and that "fantasy" can be real.

3. I think I would admit that the Professor's arguments were logical, but my head would probably spin and it'd take a while for it to catch properly.

4. I think it's a combination of all three, though the last actually sticks out to me as the most plausible. That said, regardless of which choice it was, it did exactly what it was supposed to do: send the children through the Wardrobe.

5 (ish). I do think that it's interesting that Professor Kirke had a ready argument for the existence of another world and doesn't seem surprised by what Susan and Peter said. Given that he went to Charn, Narnia and the Wood between the Worlds when he was still pretty young, I wonder if he's spent a fair amount of his life considering the trips and reasoning out how they fit into the academic and "grown-up" structure of our world. Maybe he's had to reason it out and "prove" it to himself several times throughout his life. I don't know, just a thought.

1. Susan's logic indicates that Lucy must be lying, because she can see that the back of the wardrobe is wood. Professor Kirke's logic indicates that because Lucy does not lie, Susan must not be seeing everything there is to see. Who is right? Why?
Obviously the professor because Narnia exists. Susan is not able to understand his logic. He does allow that there is the possibility that new evidence will show up.
2. The Professor seems to take the view that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. What does this tell you about Professor Kirke's character? What parallels could be drawn between Kirke, Spock, and Sherlock Holmes? What makes their characters fundamentally different?
He has an open mind and he thnks things through. I know nothing about Kirke and Spock. I have read all the Sherlock Holmes stories by Doyle, but I don't remember much about his outlook on things. However, I have been reading a lot of Hercule Poirot books and he fits in the "eliminate the impossible" group. Like the professor Poirot does most of his work with his mind. He takes all facts into consideration and isn't happy unless they all fit, like the professor. The professor has more book learning than Poirot. Poirot studies people and the professor ideas.
3. If you were Peter and Susan, and had never even considered the idea of other worlds, would you think the Professor's arguments made sense? Why/why not?
I'm not sure that I would really believe it but I can follow his logic.
4. Which of the 3 choices (losing their heads, Mrs. Macready trying to catch them, or some magic chasing them into Narnia) do you think is the reason the children thought they were being followed everywhere?
I am sure that Mrs. Macready was not trying to catch them. I love the idea that some magic was chasing them into Narnia. I think it is likely that had something to do with it. Something gave them the sense they were being followed and that caused them to lose their heads.

1. Susan's logic indicates that Lucy must be lying, because she can see that the back of the wardrobe is wood. Professor Kirke's logic indicates that because Lucy does not lie, Susan must not be seeing everything there is to see. Who is right? Why?

Professor Kirke. The back of the wardrobe being wood =/= that Lucy is lying. Nor is it a good idea to jump to the conclusion that Lucy's going a bit mad, especially since she seems to be a normal child in every other respect. While the back of the wardrobe being wood would make one inclined to bewilderment, it's too soon to draw conclusions. If the four Pevensies had never all gotten into Narnia, I think the most responsible thing to do would be to view Lucy's story as an unsolved mystery, however "logical" the prospect of Lucy having made up the whole thing may seem.

2. The Professor seems to take the view that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. What does this tell you about Professor Kirke's character? What parallels could be drawn between Kirke, Spock, and Sherlock Holmes? What makes their characters fundamentally different?

He seems to be a fearless seeker of truth, and a clever philosopher as well. I'm not very familiar with Spock as I haven't seen Star Trek, but I can see some degree of resemblance to Sherlock. Sherlock, however, seemed to be much more concerned with precision, minute details and the knowledge that would aid him in his specific line of work, whereas Professor Kirke seems to be more interested in theoretical viewpoints and broad-sweeping ideas and questions.

3. If you were Peter and Susan, and had never even considered the idea of other worlds, would you think the Professor's arguments made sense? Why/why not?

Oh yes. The argument of having faith in Lucy's truthfulness really appeals to me. I've always tried to be someone who is willing to have faith in people, even those who claimed that crazy things had happened to them, because you never know when one of them is someone who is being truthful. It's not a good idea to just stamp something as "impossible" and sweep it under the rug before you've fully analyzed the situation and the character of the person.

4. Which of the 3 choices (losing their heads, Mrs. Macready trying to catch them, or some magic chasing them into Narnia) do you think is the reason the children thought they were being followed everywhere?

Hmmmm. I don't think that Mrs. Macready would be interested in catching them if they're trying to run away, since she's got a tour party to attend. I think it was probably just the natural sound of the footsteps as the people toured the house, but the kids panicked.

5. What was your favorite/least favorite part? Why? What else caught your attention?

My least favorite part was when Edmund said that he and Lucy had just been pretending. It was a such a abominable thing to do. My favorite part was Peter and Susan's conversation with Professor Kirke. I wish grown up Digory had been in the books more; he's so smart and interesting.

1. Susan's logic indicates that Lucy must be lying, because she can see that the back of the wardrobe is wood. Professor Kirke's logic indicates that because Lucy does not lie, Susan must not be seeing everything there is to see. Who is right? Why?

Without knowing the bigger picture, I would find myself more in agreement with Susan. It's very hard to believe in something that sounds incredible when presented by someone who doesn't look like an authority on the subject and your own experience doesn't bear out their story. On the other hand, the professor would be an authority on the subject so I'd be stuck in a quandary.

2. The Professor seems to take the view that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. What does this tell you about Professor Kirke's character?

It says that the professor doesn't need to see something to believe it and that he prefers to judge people by their character and actions instead of circumstances.

3. If you were Peter and Susan, and had never even considered the idea of other worlds, would you think the Professor's arguments made sense? Why/why not?

Peter and Susan acknowledge the sense of the arguments, and would have found them easier to accept if they're weren't discussing other worlds, something altogether outside their experience as anything other than fiction. (Would they have been taught logic in school and have decided that it didn't apply in this situation?)

4. Which of the 3 choices (losing their heads, Mrs. Macready trying to catch them, or some magic chasing them into Narnia) do you think is the reason the children thought they were being followed everywhere?

I don't think Mrs. Macready wanted to catch them; she wanted them to stay out of her way. If she'd known they were there she probably would have gone another way. So it could be the pull of the prophecy mixed with some panic.

5. What was your favorite/least favorite part? Why? What else caught your attention? I really enjoy Peter and Susan's conversation with the professor. There are so many interesting little lines in there.

1. Susan's logic indicates that Lucy must be lying, because she can see that the back of the wardrobe is wood. Professor Kirke's logic indicates that because Lucy does not lie, Susan must not be seeing everything there is to see. Who is right? Why?
As King_Erlian said, we have the advantage of knowing that the professor is right. And I've always had a problem with his declaration that Lucy can't be lying because she doesn't lie; even the most truthful people do lie occasionally. Now, getting very upset for days and weeks because no one believes your stories, from an ordinarily truthful and innocent girl, that is a compelling reason to believe that, at the very least, Lucy believes it, so overall this is kind of a nitpick.

However, even without the audience already knowing that Narnia does exist, I still think he's right in the sense that Peter and Susan tried to say "It can't be that way because our perceptions don't allow for it". After all, our perceptions can't see things like the electromagnetic spectrum (aside from a very, very small piece of it), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do like that the Professor never once says, "Well, yes, Narnia does exist," he just says, "We must assume it based on what we know of the situation". He expresses it in possibilities, based on the data that they already have. He never gives them the answer, really, just the pieces for solving it on their own.

Warning, a bit of a rant ahead :

2. The Professor seems to take the view that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. What does this tell you about Professor Kirke's character? What parallels could be drawn between Kirke, Spock, and Sherlock Holmes? What makes their characters fundamentally different?
As has been said, they are all interested in logic--though, as ValiantArcher put it, Spock and Sherlock Holmes tend to be written as less open to the fantastic than Professor Kirke... though I would not say they are not open to it. Sherlock Holmes actually is quite willing to believe very convoluted explanations for murders if it fits all of his facts, and Spock is willing to believe in phenomena that had never before been recorded. However, for both of them, they were more reluctant to believe in such a solution unless there were no other options, whereas Professor Kirke seems to start there.

In terms of personality, I think that Professor Kirke is much more of a teacher, where the other two are investigators. Professor Kirke is more interested in showing Peter and Susan where they made logical fallacies, and guiding them in how to look at the situation with true logic instead of how they perceived "reality"; Spock and Sherlock Holmes are generally more interested in just arriving at the conclusion, and if necessary, explaining how they got there. Sherlock Holmes, in particular (moreso in adaptations than in the original books, IMO), always wants to be right and sure that he's right. Spock would like his compatriots to share his sense of logic, though he's been around humans enough to know better than to try to enforce it.

3. If you were Peter and Susan, and had never even considered the idea of other worlds, would you think the Professor's arguments made sense? Why/why not?
My interpretation is that Peter and Susan came out even more confused than when they went in--especially since they were fully expecting the Professor to tell them whether he thought Lucy was making things up or insane, not to tell them she might be right! I think a lot of the concepts still went over Peter and Susan's heads, though he planted the seeds for their understanding later when they experienced it first-hand. In the end, though, I think they took the important pieces out of it: "Lucy may be right, but she's certainly not crazy, so we needn't walk on eggshells around her. Let's just cheer her up and stay away from this subject."

4. Which of the 3 choices (losing their heads, Mrs. Macready trying to catch them, or some magic chasing them into Narnia) do you think is the reason the children thought they were being followed everywhere?
I agree that it seems unlikely that Mrs. Macready was actively looking for them; if they were trying to get out of her way, why would she go after them? Especially with a tour group to guide? I think that losing their heads may have contributed to it, but it seems odd to me that that alone would guide them towards that particular room in the house.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there was certainly magic guiding them there, whether it "invented" the sounds of the tour group all around the house, or just kept nudging the children/the group in the right directions to barely miss each other, until they found the wardrobe. After all, there's certainly magic controlling when the wardrobe is open to Narnia. Not only does it seem to resist efforts to intentionally get to Narnia (even the second time, Lucy just wanted to see the wardrobe again, and Edmund just came to tease her), but it also seems to have an idea of timing*. If all four children had tumbled into Narnia together the first time, they likely would've had a hard time avoiding the Witch (or the older siblings would've been to suspicious of Tumnus to go with him, and without his change of heart, he would've reported to the Witch right away about the 4 children). In fact, that likely would've happened if it was anyone but Lucy. If that happened... well, the Witch probably would have prepared a "welcome" for them the next time any of them came back, and we wouldn't have much of a story.

*

5. What was your favorite/least favorite part? Why? What else caught your attention?
I actually really like the scene where Edmund lies about going to Narnia, because it shows us much more about Edmund, Peter, and Susan. Not only do we get more insight into Edmund's bullying--and why he does it that particular way--but it also gives Peter and Susan a chance to establish that they are caring siblings, and that they don't approve of what Edmund has done at all. I really like how the book does not make excuses for Edmund's behavior, but still takes pains to show us why he behaves this way--he's not a bully "just because", but instead because he thinks he's getting something out of it, and because he's a miserable boy inside right now.

1. Susan's logic indicates that Lucy must be lying, because she can see that the back of the wardrobe is wood. Professor Kirke's logic indicates that because Lucy does not lie, Susan must not be seeing everything there is to see. Who is right? Why?

I don't see Susan's logic as being opposed to the Professor's, but rather is the first step in a two step process, which the Professor completes for her.

Susan's conclusion that Lucy is lying is perfectly reasonable if the only information we had was:
A. Lucy says there is a door to another world through a magical wardrobe.
B. Lucy says Edmund was in the other world with her.
C. Susan (and the other children) could see and feel that the back of the wardrobe is wood.
D. Edmund says Lucy is lying.

But the Professor asks a question that introduces new information:

[quote="C.S. Lewis, in The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe":fzmjtbi6]-does your experience lead you to regard your brother or sister as the more reliable? I mean, which is the more truthful?

The answer leads to:

E. When Edmund and Lucy contradict one another, Lucy is the more trustworthy one.

This new information brings us to the Professor's (inferred) argument, that Susan is missing something. In summary:

Because A, B, C, & D, Lucy must be lying. But E, so Edmund must be lying, and he must have met Lucy in the country through the magical wardrobe, despite it being wood at the moment all four children observed it.

To put it even more simply: Either Lucy is lying or she is telling the truth. Since Lucy doesn't tell lies, she must be telling the truth.

Throw in the possibility that Lucy might be crazy, which the Professor refutes, and you get the Professor's famous conclusion:

[quote="C.S. Lewis, in The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe":fzmjtbi6]Logic!...Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.

2. The Professor seems to take the view that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. What does this tell you about Professor Kirke's character? What parallels could be drawn between Kirke, Spock, and Sherlock Holmes? What makes their characters fundamentally different?

Well, answering the first part, Professor Kirke is logical.

As far as the second part goes, Professor Kirke grew up around the time of Sherlock Holmes, as noted in The Magician's Nephew, so the assumption is that they both got a good grounding in logic. I recognize "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth," as being a quote from Mr. Holmes, but I have no idea where Spock fits in, aside from Spock being Kirk's first mate. pun

However, since Spock is a logical fellow, it makes sense that he would think logically. Since he is half human it makes sense that he might have read Sherlock Holmes.

As far as parallels and differences between the three characters are concerned, I'm afraid that I would need to know a little more about Mr. Holmes and Mr. Spock before being able to answer satisfactorily.

The only observation I can offer is that all three characters are noted for their logic.

3. If you were Peter and Susan, and had never even considered the idea of other worlds, would you think the Professor's arguments made sense? Why/why not?

Yes, I would, but I would also shortly be busying myself in gathering more evidence, since the conclusion was so improbable.

4. Which of the 3 choices (losing their heads, Mrs. Macready trying to catch them, or some magic chasing them into Narnia) do you think is the reason the children thought they were being followed everywhere?

Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either Mrs. Macready is trying to catch them, or the children are losing their heads, or some magic is chasing them into Narnia. You know "Mrs. Macready was not fond of children, and did not like to be interrupted when she was telling the visitors all the things she knew," (LWW, Chapter 5) and it is obvious that the children are not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that some magic was chasing them into Narnia.

Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either Mrs. Macready is trying to catch them, or the children are losing their heads, or some magic is chasing them into Narnia. You know "Mrs. Macready was not fond of children, and did not like to be interrupted when she was telling the visitors all the things she knew," (LWW, Chapter 5) and it is obvious that the children are not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that some magic was chasing them into Narnia.

I love the way you wrote this up and I agree that there was some magic at work but I think your reasoning is not 100% conclusive. Yes, the children are not mad but being mad is not a prerequisite for (momentarily) losing one's head. For example, I was with a friend at a girl scout camp. We were waiting for someone to pick us up and were by ourselves in the dark. We heard sounds in woods which we began to wonder if they were a bear - our logical side knew the sounds were not a bear but part of us was also sure they were. It is also normal to imagine sounds if conditions are right (think children / teens being left alone for the first time). I think it likely that they were hearing (magical) sounds and that was the cause of them running around rather frantically.